Well, I'm living in the UK, so I'd say I'm fairly well placed to comment.

I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee, of all the terrorist attacks that have happened in the UK name one that has been committed by a Non UK national of immigration descent.

The government actually admit that it has allowed at least 400 Islamists who have been to the Middle East to fight for ISIS against British and allied troops back into the country, because they hold UK passports.

The Manchester bomber was known to the security services, and had been employed by the UK Government along with his father to go to Libya and help depose Gadaffi. The result of that was the formation of a splinter group called IS, ( Islamic State) the result of that was the formation of another splinter group ISIS (Islamic State In Syria)

All of this is well documented, but no-one believes it, because the PC brigade in the mainstream media will not allow it to be broadcast.

The above WAS well documented and WAS broadcast widely n the MSM.. I confess I'm not sure what point youre trying to make?

All recent UK terrorist acts have been performed by UK nationals (yet some bang on about stopping immigration to keep terrorists out

Because they are UK passport holders, we CANT prevent them coming back - where does anyone suggest we "deport" them to? I'm sure countries are queuing up to welcome terrorists

If youre trying to say the UK Govt shoudlnt have intervened in the overthrow of Gaddafi, I agree with you about that, but don't see how its relevant to the wider point...

I am not talking about recent history, I am talking about the UK's immigration policy over the decades, going back as far as the 70's, mainly to fill employment gaps, at first we allowed immigration from the Commonwealth that held some allefiance to the UK, but more recently we have been forced to allow immigration from countries because of EU regualtions and an open border policy across the EU from countries that have land borders, whether it be because of Welfare System being attractive, or that there were better wages here. What we are seeing is second generation members of the Islamic faith being radicalised in Islamic Schools in this country, by teachers and tutors, and also visiting so called Islamic priests, the evidence is out there if you care to look for it.

As you point out, we now have the problem that the second generation, and indeed some of the first are 'British' and cannot be deported, they can however be imprisoned for offences carried out abroad, if fighting for a terrorist organisation against British troops isn't worthy of a long prison sentence, then I don't know what is, but then again in this crazy PC world we have parole boards allowing serial rapisits out of prison after being given several life sentences,which in theory mean they should never walk the streets again.

Well, I'm living in the UK, so I'd say I'm fairly well placed to comment.

I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee, of all the terrorist attacks that have happened in the UK name one that has been committed by a Non UK national of immigration descent.

I remember when they were all committed by Irish people. I wasn't terrified of my family.

I'm more likely to be hit by a bus. The possibility of a terror attack doesn't even factor into my thinking.

If there are areas where sharia law is implemented over-riding UK law and is being ignored, please can you direct me to something showing this please?

I grew up under the threat of the IRA as well, I would assume that I am older than you, you were probably protected from a lot of it by your parents, but even then we had to get on with our lives and carry on, and that is what most people have to do.

For every terror attack that does happen the services stop a lot, that is well documented.
As for Sharia law, it's known to operate in Reading, London and Bradford, if you search deep enough you will find documented evidence of it.

I missed an IRA bomb by about 10 minutes btw. I don't have an irrational fear of the Irish though, which you may find bizarre.

I prefer to judge each person I meet on their actions and behaviour. Of course there are some evils people of muslim faith in the UK. Crimes should be dealt with severely..most die in the act though so there is no "punishment" in that sense. The ones who do survive (like those 2 shits who murdered Lee Rigby ) wont see the light of day for decades, if ever. Stop reading the Daily Mail please!

I missed an IRA bomb by about 10 minutes btw. I don't have an irrational fear of the Irish though, which you may find bizarre.

I prefer to judge each person I meet on their actions and behaviour. Of course there are some evils people of muslim faith in the UK. Crimes should be dealt with severely..most die in the act though so there is no "punishment" in that sense. The ones who do survive (like those 2 shits who murdered Lee Rigby ) wont see the light of day for decades, if ever. Stop reading the Daily Mail please!

I don't read any mainstream media, or watch any of the mainstream news, they only tell you want the want you to hear, the real news is being filmed every day by people like you and I, and the facts of those video's cannot be denied, yet even when confronted with the evidence the government refuse to take heed.

From Stephen King this morning:
The 2nd Amendment extremists will never be swayed from their hardline position. The only way to enact sane gun regs is at the ballot box. If you feel that way, it's simple: if they take money from the NRA, don't vote for 'em in November.

Yeah but I mean this shooting is not terrorism is it? I'm not sure whether Brent just decided to post in this thread cos it was the most appropriate one he saw or was making a point by posting this incident in the terrorism thread but terrorism is politically motivated violence, random acts of violence (mass shootings for example) are not terrorism by definition, and as far as I'm aware this shooter didn't have any political aim or message did he?

Like I said I'm not having a pop at anyone, could just be the thread he decided to post in, the only reason I posted was because I notice it a lot when a mass shooting happens, there is a need by some to label it terrorism regardless of the reason behind the attack with the intention of making some sort of point about the shooter and their identity.

The difference between this and something like the Charlie Hebdo shootings or an IRA bomb is ideology.

From Stephen King this morning:
The 2nd Amendment extremists will never be swayed from their hardline position. The only way to enact sane gun regs is at the ballot box. If you feel that way, it's simple: if they take money from the NRA, don't vote for 'em in November.

Words to live by.

Also from Steven King on this issue, responding to a completely unrelated tweet about comparing opiod overdose deaths to ones by MS-13,

"Don't tell that to the parents of the kids who got shot in Broward County today, sport."

He is so dumb that he actually thought MS-13 was a gun, not a gang. Be carefully basing your argument on such uninformed people.

And also, Obama held the presidency, house and senate and didn't pass any new gun laws. It really doesn't matter who you vote for, no one will make a law that will get them voted out at the first possible opportunity.

Yeah but I mean this shooting is not terrorism is it? I'm not sure whether Brent just decided to post in this thread cos it was the most appropriate one he saw or was making a point by posting this incident in the terrorism thread but terrorism is politically motivated violence, random acts of violence (mass shootings for example) are not terrorism by definition, and as far as I'm aware this shooter didn't have any political aim or message did he?

Like I said I'm not having a pop at anyone, could just be the thread he decided to post in, the only reason I posted was because I notice it a lot when a mass shooting happens, there is a need by some to label it terrorism regardless of the reason behind the attack with the intention of making some sort of point about the shooter and their identity.

The difference between this and something like the Charlie Hebdo shootings or an IRA bomb is ideology.

This shouldn't be in terrorism, at least not until his motive is known, but it certainly doesn't look politically motivated. Brent just put it here because he is a virtue signaling social justice warrior and he was trying to make a statement that this is somehow equal to acts of violence committed on behalf of a hateful ideology.

And also, Obama held the presidency, house and senate and didn't pass any new gun laws. It really doesn't matter who you vote for, no one will make a law that will get them voted out at the first possible opportunity.

Woah. Gonna stop you right there.

Obama had the House from 2009 to 2011 but legislation does not become law without the Senate. So two years, not eight.

The Senate operates with a 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. Saying that Obama had the Senate would assume that there were 60 Democrat Senators at all times during his Presidency. That only occurred once - From 24th September 2009 to 4th February 2010. Just over four months where he "had" the Senate during which time he carried out his campaign pledge which was affordable health care for all Americans.

And also, Obama held the presidency, house and senate and didn't pass any new gun laws. It really doesn't matter who you vote for, no one will make a law that will get them voted out at the first possible opportunity.

You constantly talk about what a shit president Obama was yet you're happy to applaud Trumps inactivity over the issue because its the same? Wasn't Trump meant to make America great again? Fix the things that are broken? I'd say this would qualify wouldn't it?

Oh and Trump sent his thoughts and prayers again. Thats a little different to his response when the crime is committed by a Muslim or someone who's family came over with a diversity visa

Dont forget, not only would he be campaigning for travel bans etc, he actually RETRACTED legislation that restricts mentally ill access to semi automatic rifles

This shouldn't be in terrorism, at least not until his motive is known, but it certainly doesn't look politically motivated. Brent just put it here because he is a virtue signaling social justice warrior and he was trying to make a statement that this is somehow equal to acts of violence committed on behalf of a hateful ideology.

Oh look Relly's making assumptions again.

The truth is I didn't really know where to put this, we honestly might as well have a mass shooting thread considering they happen more frequently than exciting United games.

And also, Obama held the presidency, house and senate and didn't pass any new gun laws. It really doesn't matter who you vote for, no one will make a law that will get them voted out at the first possible opportunity.

Woah. Gonna stop you right there.

Obama had the House from 2009 to 2011 but legislation does not become law without the Senate. So two years, not eight.

The Senate operates with a 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. Saying that Obama had the Senate would assume that there were 60 Democrat Senators at all times during his Presidency. That only occurred once - From 24th September 2009 to 4th February 2010. Just over four months where he "had" the Senate during which time he carried out his campaign pledge which was affordable health care for all Americans.

Hopefully that clears things up.

Sandy Hook, for reference, was December 2012.

Please point out where I stated he had those conditions for his entire term.... i'll be waiting patiently. And please don't explain American politics to me, I most likely understand more about it then you ever will.

If Obama really wanted to change the gun laws he had a window, but he didn't tackle it then because Democrats, actually politicians in general, would rather give the impression that they want to change something instead of actually doing it. Had he taken on gun laws during that window he could have absolutely passed a law, however it would have condemned himself to one term. And he could have taken on both health care and gun laws at the same time and passed both. But instead he waited until he knew he would never get anything passed to start pushing the issue, much like Sandies, he was just virtue signalling over gun laws, not actually doing something.

And also, Obama held the presidency, house and senate and didn't pass any new gun laws. It really doesn't matter who you vote for, no one will make a law that will get them voted out at the first possible opportunity.

You constantly talk about what a shit president Obama was yet you're happy to applaud Trumps inactivity over the issue because its the same? Wasn't Trump meant to make America great again? Fix the things that are broken? I'd say this would qualify wouldn't it?

Oh and Trump sent his thoughts and prayers again. Thats a little different to his response when the crime is committed by a Muslim or someone who's family came over with a diversity visa

Dont forget, not only would he be campaigning for travel bans etc, he actually RETRACTED legislation that restricts mentally ill access to semi automatic rifles

This shouldn't be in terrorism, at least not until his motive is known, but it certainly doesn't look politically motivated. Brent just put it here because he is a virtue signaling social justice warrior and he was trying to make a statement that this is somehow equal to acts of violence committed on behalf of a hateful ideology.

Oh look Relly's making assumptions again.

The truth is I didn't really know where to put this, we honestly might as well have a mass shooting thread considering they happen more frequently than exciting United games.

What's the solution Brent? Everyone says change the gun laws and this won't happen. What laws? Changed to what? How would that change what happened? Australian banned guns and had a buy back program and only about a third of people gave up their guns. Canadians have access to almost all the guns available in the US and this doesn't happen here. This kid had no history of violence and would have easily passed Canada's tough background checks. Trump is doing something, he addressed the real issue today and that is mental health, not guns. The only thing right now that would have prevented this is having armed faculty at schools.

And all acts of violence where innocent people are killed are awful, but you are trying to dilute the conversation about the dangers of islam by lumping a completely unrelated topic in with it.

But instead he waited until he knew he would never get anything passed to start pushing the issue, much like Sandies, he was just virtue signalling over gun laws, not actually doing something.

Hopefully that clears things up for you.

You really are a hypocritical birth canal. Pot shot after pot shot but cry to the woodsheds when anyone makes a personal attack on you

But if you honestly think gun control laws didn't work in Australia, or Britain, you're actually a bigger clown than you portray

Although want to know why gun control works in Australia and we haven't had 19 school shooting by the middle of February, because ANYONE (let alone the mentally ill) can't buy an AR-15 like its a subway sandwich.

What on earth anyone needs that gun for is beyond me. Hunting? If you can't kill an magnificent, innocent and defenceless animal without using a machine like that, than you're a bigger cowardly sack of shit than first imagined

Now fornicate off with the personal attacks, I don't mind them, but they become tedious when you cry when the same is done to you

This is part of the problem with words like terrorism. People assume that because a mass shooting isn't necessarily labelled as a terrorist act, that means that it is not as bad as a shooting that is labelled as such, because they don't understand what terrorism means. Its as if people think the word just means 'terrible' or 'terrifying' or something.

Obviously a random act of psycho violence where a pupil shoots and kills 30 students is worse in terms of the death toll than the murder of Lee Rigby where only one person was killed, but it was the motive and the reason given by the killers that made Lee Rigby's murder an act of terrorism.

Best example I can think of atm, it's like dangerous driving and drink driving. Both of them are crimes and can cause death and you can be driving dangerously while drink driving. You can kill someone driving dangerously and only crash your car when drink driving so the former would be 'worse' there, but drink driving describes something more specific. Same with terrorism.

Usually a shooting like this is followed by lots of point scoring and identity politics, saying how it's never called terrorism when the attacker is white (not true, the murder of Jo Cox was terrorism as was the guy who ran over Muslims outside the mosque in London, as was Anders Breivik, and there are hundreds of examples from the IRA during the Troubles) and that if he was brown it would be terrorism (also not true necessarily).

I assume the intention with it all is to downplay the reality that the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts are committed by followers of one ideology, its kind of "but look at them, they are doing it too".